[2025:RJ-JP:46648] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8746/2024 Govind Sahay Pareek S/o Late Shri Shiv Sahay, Aged About 67 Years, R/o S-62, Bhardwaj Bhawan, Ambabadi, Jaipur, Sadar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Harishankar God S/o Madan Lal Sharma, R/o 205, Shilpi Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ankur Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Ms.Namrata Sharma Mr.Sumit Kumar Upadhyay Ms.Saziya Khan JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.357/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West) under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the dispute in question. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the seller of the subject land and is merely a property dealer. Counsel submits that in fact the patta of the subject land was allotted by one Ramavtar to the complainant and when the physical possession of the land was not handed over to him, hence, the impugned F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioner and against the co-accused Ramavtar. Counsel further submits that looking to the nature of [2025:RJ-JP:46648] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8746/2024] allegations, the instant case is purely civil in nature for which the impugned F.I.R. has been registered and has been given the colour of a criminal case. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that the subject land was sold by the petitioner to the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- and an agreement was also executed in this regard and they submit that in fact the petitioner is not the owner of the subject land, but in spite of above, he sold the same by way of an agreement and received the aforesaid amount. Looking to the fact that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. While exercising the inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS, this Court cannot adjudge the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. If the contents/allegations mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. reveals commission of a cognizable offence, the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. Certainly, the task assigned to the Investigating Officer cannot be undertaken by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction. [2025:RJ-JP:46648] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8746/2024] 6. If at all the petitioner is having any grievance or cause, he would be at liberty to file an appropriate representation/application along-with relevant documents in support thereof before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /7